(PC) Mathews v. County of Sacramento

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JAMES LEE MATHEWS, No. 2:23-cv-00922 DB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., 15 Defendants.

17 By order filed February 16, 2024, plaintiff’s complaint was found to not state any cognizable claims and thirty days leave to file an amended complaint was granted. Thirty days from that date have now passed, and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the court’s order. Accordingly, plaintiff’s complaint should be dismissed without further leave to amend for the reasons set forth in the order filed February 16, 2024. (ECF No. 11.)

23 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case; and 25 IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without further leave to amend for failure to state a claim.

27 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty-one (21) | days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written | objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned | “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that | failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District || Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

6 | Dated: March 28, 2024 9 matho922.fta.fr NT ee oe UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE